Not true. QP applies to all physical, chemical, and biological processes in the universe. Even you and I because everything is made up of matter, energy or space. An matter, space, time, energy behaves according to QP.
Common-on Roger, I am talking about Quantum mechanical particles. The stuff you and I are made of.
We are made of quantum particles and so is the sun. You said that QP governs all matter including molecules and the sun.
I said the QP governs subatomic (quantum) particles, meaning the movement of particles WITHIN or BETWEEN molecules. It is similar then to the strong nuclear force which holds the nucleus together, but does NOT affect anything else.
As I said before QP does not control thinking, because it is neurons which are brain cells which generate thought, NOT electrons which are quanta.
The sun is a quantum mechanical system governed by the properties of quantum mechanics. In the core of the sun, hydrogen ions (protons - 2 up quirks, 1 down quirk) collide with another proton and produce a helium ion and radiation. A lot of other quantum mechanical processes going on simultaneously. But each particles exact location and energy level is unknown in certainty (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle/Relationship) Fusion of two specific particles is random in its probability of occurrence. Billions of protons fusing every second to make sunshine.
The brain works the same way although it is not a fusion process it has electromagnetic chemical processes at work. But at it core, the brain is also a quantum mechanical biological system. Each neuron in the brain will fire randomly depending on the chemistry at the synapses. Patterns of neuron fring sequences emerge. Billions of neuron firing every second to make thoughts and memories.
@Patrick
The way that fusion works in the sun and other stars to convert matter to energy has everything to do with E = mc squared, and little to do with quantum physics. QP is not a force, but a set of rules. Uncertainty does not say that we do not know the location of a particle, but the more exactly we know the location of a particle, the less exactly we know its momentum, and visa versa.
The brain does not work in the same way. How can something be random, if it depends on something else that is not random. Do the patterns of neurons create my thoughts, or do my thoughts create the patterns of the neurons?
Your guru says that atoms are made of energy, so the universe is not material. Very interesting and not scientific.
I think we are way off here in two ways: 1 my ability to adequately describe QM to you and 2) your understanding of QM is not that current or at the level to effectively exchange ideas. There is nothing wrong with that but it causes us not being able to communicate our thoughts effectively.
A scenario that satisfies my understanding of both science and theology (i admit I am weak on both) is the following: for the first 150,000 yrs after Homo sapiens appeared in east Africa, they behaved much like the Neanderthals that preceded them–largely instinctual and largely (but not totally) selfish. About 40,000 yrs ago some epi-genetic event ‘programmed’ the neural circuits in, perhaps just a few (Adam) of their brains (slightly smaller than the Neanderthal’s) to operate as Minds, inventing a language by which these gifted few could spread the ‘program’ to their neighbors. At this point in time God could covenant with these truly human creatures, inviting them to rise above their instinctual behavior, to bring true compassion and agape into a worldly life that had not experience it before. While this gift of conscience enabled humans to act nobly, they could also choose to spurn the gift and act sinfully. Thus saintliness and sinfulness entered our World at the same time. Original Sin is the ‘evolutionary selfishness’ with which we are biologically endowed, and this we pass on to our children. But Scripture tells us that, spiritually, we are also created in God’s image, and this concept should also be passed on to future generations (in what Teilhad calls the Noosphere and includes our religious Faith) Much of human ‘brokenness’ stems from a moral failure–our spiritual nature losing out to our animal nature. The remainder of human ‘brokenness’ is dis-ease–e.g. cancer, alzheimer’s, schizophrenia etc–which God challenges us to eradicate using the gift of Mind, the gift that made us human.
Al Leo
1 Like
Al,
Your scenario does satisfy both science and your theology. Beginning about 40,000 years ago humans invented gods, spirits as agents to explain nature. It was humans who put these agents in charge of what was happening. It is estimated that over 10,000 gods have been named as agents for what is happening in the world since humans have been alive. Your God appears in recorded history about 2500 years ago. Doesn’t it seems like a long time between 40,000 years ago and 2500 years ago, that humans all over the planets had thousands of agents to explain nature and the events in their lives?
Patrick
Not at all. My God is patient. He enabled human minds to construct a Noosphere where abstract ideas could be exchanged orally, but its growth was relatively slow and tentative until the invention of writing. But in Sumeria, writing was at first limited to accounting and only later applied to matters relating to religious belief, such as the epic of Gilgamesh. It was later still when hieroglyphics was used in Egypt to preserve ideas about the role of the gods. And it wasn’t until the 15th century when printing was invented that religious ideas could be widely spread in the Noosphere. Of course the digital age makes the exchange of these ‘noogenes’ much more rapid and widespread, as this Forum bears witness.
I envision a patient God who is more amused than angry at humankind’s efforts to explain nature and the events in their lives by inventing numerous gods. I can readily see how Harari’s viewpoint, as expressed in his book, “Sapiens”, appeals to you. You and I approach this problem from separate directions, and so we read the evidence differently. I believe that humankind will actually become more spiritually inclined in the future, and that the evidence for monotheism will prevail. However, my guess is that no single religion will dominate the future. Ideally, each person would pick the one pathway (or none) that best suits his/her personality, and the bumper-sticker ‘Coexist’ will truly apply.
Al Leo
1 Like
Pretty good discussions in this thread named to include the phrase “THEISTICALLY GUIDED” ! I concur!
George Brooks
In 2014, we find a good article using the term “God Guided” Evolution:
"But nearly 1 out of 4 Americans believes God has guided evolution, according to the Pew survey, a position that has sometimes been called “theistic evolution.” And a growing number of Evangelicals, like Robertson, are also embracing this view. "
Then people, Christians and Jews primarily, invented Nature to explain how the universe worked some 400 hundred years ago. That works pretty well, except that Nature is dead and cannot think, so Nature cannot explain anything. So we have the choice between God Who is intelligent, wise, and good, and Nature who is stupid.
I’ll take a universe that is beautiful, subtle, and dynamic as the fitting Creation of a great God. You can have the stupid, formless, meaningless universe made by random and stupid Nature if you want it.
Roger, find your way through all the cutting words to that place of Christmas cheer – even for – especially for all those with whom we disagree!
Merry Christmas to you.
-Merv
P.S. seen on a poster: May my words be sweet and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them!
1 Like
That is a very interesting speculation. There is really no way of knowing whether that is true or not. However I am going to challenge it on one particular claim. You say that humans were interested only in explaining nature.
Religion is primarily concerned about morality. To say that the spiritual was invented to explain only nature is false. Humans are concerned nature or science is far from true. Religion is about the metaphysical, not the physical.
To say that people believed that spirits were responsible for all that happened is not true. Humans were too smart to think that everything they see has a spiritual source esp. when their lives depended on working with nature through hunting and farming. I really do not know why nonbelievers think that primitive humans were so simple minded.
Actually it is thought that Abraham lived about 2,000 BC, while today is 2015 AD, so it was about 4000 years ago that YHWH revealed Godself to humans. We cannot say why this is so, except from all appearances people weren’t ready yet.
It was through the Bible in which God fully separated the metaphysical in our faith from the physical or the natural from morality and the spiritual. This enabled the development of science as we know it. 35,500 years is not much time in the life of the earth. If you see a problem, what is it?
Please do not confuse the natural and the metaphysical. You might not be interested in the metaphysical, but that does not mean others are not. Just because people are different does not mean that they are wrong.
[Post edited because the original post was deleted so this response as originally worded no longer made sense]
Especially so for a post on Christmas day - even as an atheist I would have cringed at the mood spoiler.
The Christmas spirit is alive and well over here today. Lots of presents under the tree and family all around. Dinner starts at 3 pm and will last until late tonight. We are celebrating the really important things in life. Life, family, and togetherness. The fact we don’t honor the birth of a mythical god-man who was executed to appease the jealous wrath of his bloodthirsty father does not mean we don’t joyfully celebrate the season. We honor real human values. My family celebrates with food, fun, music, gifts and laughter, like our ancestors did millennia before. We nonbelievers lead lives of immense meaning. There is purpose in life. As long as there are problems to solve, we have meaning in this life, the only life we have.
The statement by Sam Harris is dead wrong, because he does not understand the structure of reality nor the meaning of faith.
God and Nature are not the same. That is something only non-believers believe. God did not send the flood, Nature did. Why not celebrate survival of an event that could have taken my life and the lives of my loved ones? that is a no brainer.
However you and Sam Harris must not have read the book of Job where God makes clear that disease and death are not the punishment for the unrighteous, but the common fate of all humans. I see no evidence that those who survive a disaster are so caught up in their good fortune that they fail to mourn the deaths of others and help them out. Only an atheist would believe that ridiculous, false statement.
You are right. To make God the immediate cause of all reality is wrong, but Christians do not do this. God, nature, and humans are all sources of reality. On the other hand by making Nature the source of all reality one takes rationality out of the one’s understanding of reality, which is the real problem with atheism.
When we combine the physical and the metaphysical into one monistic Reality we end up by denying human freedom and purpose of life as Dawkins and Dennett make clear.
At the risk of troubling waters that have been recently calm, I thought I should point out that Prof. Robin Collins, in this thread, is quite exuberant in the use of the term GUIDED.
It should be noted!
With a little luck, sometime in 2016 we’ll start seeing BioLogos writers using variants of the phrase: “God Front-loaded Creation” !!!
George,
Have you given up on God-guided cosmic ray mutations? 
1 Like